Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Um. I think we get your point. But it is not clear that the Nazareth carpenter being real makes him God or that people on here are saying that.

Historicity and divinity can be separate squabbles. It is unfortunate they are so linked in your posts.
Makes one go WUT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof".

Let's not forget that the Bible and what stories it contains is based on a vote of humans. There are other non-canon gospels and Christian beliefs that died out or were considered "unorthodox" (and ultimately suppressed), yet they also point to varying interpretations of the initial belief system about Jesus. The development of the surviving belief took hundreds of years.

Thus, to assume it is based on a consistent oral history of a living person is entirely erroneous.

What surviving evidence we do have available points to a completely fabricated "savior" based on theological interpretation necessary to explain the failure of prophecy/fulfillment of scripture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof".

Let's not forget that the Bible and what stories it contains is based on a vote of humans. There are other non-canon gospels and Christian beliefs that died out or were considered "unorthodox" (and ultimately suppressed), yet they also point to varying interpretations of the initial belief system about Jesus. The development of the surviving belief took hundreds of years.

Thus, to assume it is based on a consistent oral history of a living person is entirely erroneous.

What surviving evidence we do have available points to a completely fabricated "savior" based on theological interpretation necessary to explain the failure of prophecy/fulfillment of scripture.

“Entirely fabricated savior” is a stronger claim than evidence supports. Most critical scholars (including atheists) do not conclude total fabrication.

Tacitus mentions execution under Pontius Pilate. Josephus (even accounting for interpolations) references Jesus as a known figure. Those are not Christian scripture, are hostile or neutral, and shows a real person existed. This proves the “entire fabrication” theory is false.

Christianity is a historically situated movement. Fairies and goblins are folkloric creatures without historical anchoring. The comparison is intellectually lazy.

Oral cultures can preserve core facts while mutating interpretation. That’s consistent with many historical movements.

Canon formation was a recognition process, not an invention process. Communities already using certain texts over others gradually formalized what was already dominant in practice. The four canonical gospels were already widely circulated and treated as authoritative by the mid-2nd century. Later councils largely ratified existing consensus, rather than selecting arbitrarily. Non-canonical texts often:
Appear later
Depend literarily on canonical texts
Reflect developed theology rather than primitive belief.

This doesn’t prove inspiration—but it does undermine the idea that orthodoxy was created ex nihilo by political fiat.

Total fabrication fails to explain multiple independent attestations

This is where mythicism struggles most.

Jesus is referenced by hostile or neutral sources like Tacitus and Josephus. These sources have no theological incentive. Execution under Roman authority is an embarrassing detail, unlikely to be invented. Early Christians gained no political or material advantage from invention—only persecution.

This doesn’t prove divinity, but it does strongly favor a real executed figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof".

Let's not forget that the Bible and what stories it contains is based on a vote of humans. There are other non-canon gospels and Christian beliefs that died out or were considered "unorthodox" (and ultimately suppressed), yet they also point to varying interpretations of the initial belief system about Jesus. The development of the surviving belief took hundreds of years.

Thus, to assume it is based on a consistent oral history of a living person is entirely erroneous.

What surviving evidence we do have available points to a completely fabricated "savior" based on theological interpretation necessary to explain the failure of prophecy/fulfillment of scripture.

“Entirely fabricated savior” is a stronger claim than evidence supports. Most critical scholars (including atheists) do not conclude total fabrication.

Tacitus mentions execution under Pontius Pilate. Josephus (even accounting for interpolations) references Jesus as a known figure. Those are not Christian scripture, are hostile or neutral, and shows a real person existed. This proves the “entire fabrication” theory is false.

Christianity is a historically situated movement. Fairies and goblins are folkloric creatures without historical anchoring. The comparison is intellectually lazy.

Oral cultures can preserve core facts while mutating interpretation. That’s consistent with many historical movements.

Canon formation was a recognition process, not an invention process. Communities already using certain texts over others gradually formalized what was already dominant in practice. The four canonical gospels were already widely circulated and treated as authoritative by the mid-2nd century. Later councils largely ratified existing consensus, rather than selecting arbitrarily. Non-canonical texts often:
Appear later
Depend literarily on canonical texts
Reflect developed theology rather than primitive belief.

This doesn’t prove inspiration—but it does undermine the idea that orthodoxy was created ex nihilo by political fiat.

Total fabrication fails to explain multiple independent attestations

This is where mythicism struggles most.

Jesus is referenced by hostile or neutral sources like Tacitus and Josephus. These sources have no theological incentive. Execution under Roman authority is an embarrassing detail, unlikely to be invented. Early Christians gained no political or material advantage from invention—only persecution.

This doesn’t prove divinity, but it does strongly favor a real executed figure.

Correct, except I would not use the terminology "real". And the fact that Tacitus and Josephus referenced Jesus could mean that they was given false information, which they then wrote about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

I’m not claiming it’s true because scholars say so; I’m claiming scholars say so because of converging evidence. You’re dismissing a claim based on its source rather than its merits. Those errors were corrected by better evidence, not by rejecting consensus as such.

Fallibility doesn’t eliminate probabilistic value.

You haven’t shown the evidence is bad—only that citing consensus alone is insufficient. In other words, your argument is procedural, not substantive.

That’s fine philosophically—but rhetorically, it’s a gap.

Most mainstream positions about Jesus are minimal:
1. A Jewish preacher existed
2. He was crucified
3. Followers believed something happened

You don’t need to accept those—but rejecting them requires stronger argumentation than rejecting theological claims.

You (and others who reject scholarship) exhibit contrarianism, rather than legitimate skepticism/critique.


You’re treating any reference to scholarly consensus as a fallacy, but that’s not how the appeal to authority works. It’s only fallacious when authority replaces evidence. In history, consensus reflects accumulated evaluation of primary sources, not personal prestige.

No historian claims consensus is proof. It’s Bayesian weight. When thousands of trained specialists independently converge on the same minimal conclusion, that convergence itself is evidence—especially in low-data fields.

Geocentrism was overturned by new predictive models and instrumentation. The historical Jesus question doesn’t work like physics. We won’t get new telescopes for antiquity, so rejecting consensus here is not analogous.

You’ve objected to how conclusions are justified, but you haven’t addressed the evidence scholars cite: multiple attestation, embarrassment, hostile sources, early creeds, and Roman execution practices.

You’re dismissing conclusions because they come from institutions that have been wrong before. That’s judging claims by origin, not by content.
If we apply your standard consistently, we lose Alexander, Socrates, Hannibal, and most of ancient history. At some point, inference from limited sources is unavoidable.

No serious scholar claims Christianity’s theology proves Jesus existed. The consensus is minimal and secular: an apocalyptic preacher was executed and inspired a movement.

If you think the consensus is wrong, the burden is on you to show that the standard historical explanations fail and that an alternative explains the data better.

Not an anonymous poster on a mommy website type alternative explanation: think 5,000-10,000 scholars/academics/profs/historians vs >20 fringe skeptics who have 0 academic/scholarly/professional historian explanation. You aren’t going to “prove” anything on dcum that moves the needle. You need to move the needle in the world of academia and scholarship.

If you are bored and feel compelled to argue the historicity of Jesus on an anonymous forum, that’s your choice. For all the time you spend here posting, get a degree in a relative field and start going toe to toe with the professionals and show them your work. If you are so confident they are all wrong, you would be hailed as an amazing academic and thinker once you prove they are all wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof".

Let's not forget that the Bible and what stories it contains is based on a vote of humans. There are other non-canon gospels and Christian beliefs that died out or were considered "unorthodox" (and ultimately suppressed), yet they also point to varying interpretations of the initial belief system about Jesus. The development of the surviving belief took hundreds of years.

Thus, to assume it is based on a consistent oral history of a living person is entirely erroneous.

What surviving evidence we do have available points to a completely fabricated "savior" based on theological interpretation necessary to explain the failure of prophecy/fulfillment of scripture.

“Entirely fabricated savior” is a stronger claim than evidence supports. Most critical scholars (including atheists) do not conclude total fabrication.

Tacitus mentions execution under Pontius Pilate. Josephus (even accounting for interpolations) references Jesus as a known figure. Those are not Christian scripture, are hostile or neutral, and shows a real person existed. This proves the “entire fabrication” theory is false.

Christianity is a historically situated movement. Fairies and goblins are folkloric creatures without historical anchoring. The comparison is intellectually lazy.

Oral cultures can preserve core facts while mutating interpretation. That’s consistent with many historical movements.

Canon formation was a recognition process, not an invention process. Communities already using certain texts over others gradually formalized what was already dominant in practice. The four canonical gospels were already widely circulated and treated as authoritative by the mid-2nd century. Later councils largely ratified existing consensus, rather than selecting arbitrarily. Non-canonical texts often:
Appear later
Depend literarily on canonical texts
Reflect developed theology rather than primitive belief.

This doesn’t prove inspiration—but it does undermine the idea that orthodoxy was created ex nihilo by political fiat.

Total fabrication fails to explain multiple independent attestations

This is where mythicism struggles most.

Jesus is referenced by hostile or neutral sources like Tacitus and Josephus. These sources have no theological incentive. Execution under Roman authority is an embarrassing detail, unlikely to be invented. Early Christians gained no political or material advantage from invention—only persecution.

This doesn’t prove divinity, but it does strongly favor a real executed figure.

Correct, except I would not use the terminology "real". And the fact that Tacitus and Josephus referenced Jesus could mean that they was given false information, which they then wrote about.

Historians don’t discard sources unless there’s evidence of error, bias, or implausibility—not just epistemic possibility.

Tacitus had no incentive to repeat Christian propaganda, and every incentive to verify Roman administrative facts. Saying he was “misinformed” requires assuming elite Roman historians casually repeated rumors about executions without checking records—which is implausible.

Tacitus is: hostile to Christians, writing for Roman elites, and known for contempt of superstition.

Tacitus names:
-Execution
-Roman authority
-Pontius Pilate
And Roman governors kept execution records.

Even if you remove all Christian interpolations, Josephus still refers to “James, the brother of Jesus called Christ,” which presupposes Jesus as a known figure, not a theological abstraction.

Josephus wasn’t writing theology
1. He was explaining who James was
2. “Jesus called Christ” functions as an identifier, not an argument.

That’s it.

Misinformation here would require:
A widespread, accepted false figure known well enough to serve as a reference point, yet is entirely fictional.

If both Tacitus and Josephus were wrong, you need to explain how the false information became stable, specific, and geographically widespread within decades—without originating from a real person.

If we treat all second-hand ancient references as potentially false without positive disconfirmation, then we lose most of ancient history.

The real question is why do you think arguing the issue here is important? Do you think it’s going to change the professional historian, scholar, professor consensus? It will not. It has zero relevance to the subject of the historicity of Jesus Christ. This discussion has no meaning in that arena, and that’s the only arena that it counts.

If this is your private hobby and something you enjoy discussing, great. That’s really the only value this discussion has for you or anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof".

Let's not forget that the Bible and what stories it contains is based on a vote of humans. There are other non-canon gospels and Christian beliefs that died out or were considered "unorthodox" (and ultimately suppressed), yet they also point to varying interpretations of the initial belief system about Jesus. The development of the surviving belief took hundreds of years.

Thus, to assume it is based on a consistent oral history of a living person is entirely erroneous.

What surviving evidence we do have available points to a completely fabricated "savior" based on theological interpretation necessary to explain the failure of prophecy/fulfillment of scripture.

“Entirely fabricated savior” is a stronger claim than evidence supports. Most critical scholars (including atheists) do not conclude total fabrication.

Tacitus mentions execution under Pontius Pilate. Josephus (even accounting for interpolations) references Jesus as a known figure. Those are not Christian scripture, are hostile or neutral, and shows a real person existed. This proves the “entire fabrication” theory is false.

Christianity is a historically situated movement. Fairies and goblins are folkloric creatures without historical anchoring. The comparison is intellectually lazy.

Oral cultures can preserve core facts while mutating interpretation. That’s consistent with many historical movements.

Canon formation was a recognition process, not an invention process. Communities already using certain texts over others gradually formalized what was already dominant in practice. The four canonical gospels were already widely circulated and treated as authoritative by the mid-2nd century. Later councils largely ratified existing consensus, rather than selecting arbitrarily. Non-canonical texts often:
Appear later
Depend literarily on canonical texts
Reflect developed theology rather than primitive belief.

This doesn’t prove inspiration—but it does undermine the idea that orthodoxy was created ex nihilo by political fiat.

Total fabrication fails to explain multiple independent attestations

This is where mythicism struggles most.

Jesus is referenced by hostile or neutral sources like Tacitus and Josephus. These sources have no theological incentive. Execution under Roman authority is an embarrassing detail, unlikely to be invented. Early Christians gained no political or material advantage from invention—only persecution.

This doesn’t prove divinity, but it does strongly favor a real executed figure.

Correct, except I would not use the terminology "real". And the fact that Tacitus and Josephus referenced Jesus could mean that they was given false information, which they then wrote about.

Historians don’t discard sources unless there’s evidence of error, bias, or implausibility—not just epistemic possibility.

Tacitus had no incentive to repeat Christian propaganda, and every incentive to verify Roman administrative facts. Saying he was “misinformed” requires assuming elite Roman historians casually repeated rumors about executions without checking records—which is implausible.

Tacitus is: hostile to Christians, writing for Roman elites, and known for contempt of superstition.

Tacitus names:
-Execution
-Roman authority
-Pontius Pilate
And Roman governors kept execution records.

Even if you remove all Christian interpolations, Josephus still refers to “James, the brother of Jesus called Christ,” which presupposes Jesus as a known figure, not a theological abstraction.

Josephus wasn’t writing theology
1. He was explaining who James was
2. “Jesus called Christ” functions as an identifier, not an argument.

That’s it.

Misinformation here would require:
A widespread, accepted false figure known well enough to serve as a reference point, yet is entirely fictional.

If both Tacitus and Josephus were wrong, you need to explain how the false information became stable, specific, and geographically widespread within decades—without originating from a real person.

If we treat all second-hand ancient references as potentially false without positive disconfirmation, then we lose most of ancient history.

The real question is why do you think arguing the issue here is important? Do you think it’s going to change the professional historian, scholar, professor consensus? It will not. It has zero relevance to the subject of the historicity of Jesus Christ. This discussion has no meaning in that arena, and that’s the only arena that it counts.

If this is your private hobby and something you enjoy discussing, great. That’s really the only value this discussion has for you or anyone else.

The specific passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is widely regarded by critical scholars as a later Christian interpolation or forgery. The TF, found in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3/63, contains a detailed description of Jesus as the Christ, a miracle worker, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and resurrected—elements that are considered inconsistent with Josephus’s known style and worldview as a Jewish historian.

Scholars such as D.M. Murdock and Paul J. Hopper argue that the entire TF passage is a forgery, based on linguistic, grammatical, and narrative analysis. Hopper’s study demonstrates that the passage uses a different syntactic structure, verb usage, and temporal organization compared to Josephus’s authentic works, aligning more closely with Christian apologetic literature from the third or fourth century. The passage’s narrative style resembles a creed or theological argument rather than historical reporting, and it introduces a passive, oblique portrayal of Pontius Pilate that contradicts Josephus’s earlier, more active depiction of Pilate as a ruthless Roman authority.

Further evidence for the forgery comes from the absence of the TF in early Christian writings. Church fathers such as Origen (d. 253 CE), who extensively quoted Josephus, never referenced the passage, despite his known interest in Josephus’s works and his criticism of Josephus for not acknowledging Jesus as the Christ. The first known mention of the TF appears in the works of Eusebius (c. 260–340 CE), who is suspected by some scholars of having inserted or fabricated the passage to support Christian doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

💯 No need to refer to fairies and goblins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

💯 No need to refer to fairies and goblins.

It's not needed, but it is entertaining to see how upset believers get when you aptly compare God or Jesus with fairies, goblins, Santa, the tooth fairy or anything else kids believe in and adults don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus. You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because an expert or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof".

Let's not forget that the Bible and what stories it contains is based on a vote of humans. There are other non-canon gospels and Christian beliefs that died out or were considered "unorthodox" (and ultimately suppressed), yet they also point to varying interpretations of the initial belief system about Jesus. The development of the surviving belief took hundreds of years.

Thus, to assume it is based on a consistent oral history of a living person is entirely erroneous.

What surviving evidence we do have available points to a completely fabricated "savior" based on theological interpretation necessary to explain the failure of prophecy/fulfillment of scripture.

“Entirely fabricated savior” is a stronger claim than evidence supports. Most critical scholars (including atheists) do not conclude total fabrication.

Tacitus mentions execution under Pontius Pilate. Josephus (even accounting for interpolations) references Jesus as a known figure. Those are not Christian scripture, are hostile or neutral, and shows a real person existed. This proves the “entire fabrication” theory is false.

Christianity is a historically situated movement. Fairies and goblins are folkloric creatures without historical anchoring. The comparison is intellectually lazy.

Oral cultures can preserve core facts while mutating interpretation. That’s consistent with many historical movements.

Canon formation was a recognition process, not an invention process. Communities already using certain texts over others gradually formalized what was already dominant in practice. The four canonical gospels were already widely circulated and treated as authoritative by the mid-2nd century. Later councils largely ratified existing consensus, rather than selecting arbitrarily. Non-canonical texts often:
Appear later
Depend literarily on canonical texts
Reflect developed theology rather than primitive belief.

This doesn’t prove inspiration—but it does undermine the idea that orthodoxy was created ex nihilo by political fiat.

Total fabrication fails to explain multiple independent attestations

This is where mythicism struggles most.

Jesus is referenced by hostile or neutral sources like Tacitus and Josephus. These sources have no theological incentive. Execution under Roman authority is an embarrassing detail, unlikely to be invented. Early Christians gained no political or material advantage from invention—only persecution.

This doesn’t prove divinity, but it does strongly favor a real executed figure.

Correct, except I would not use the terminology "real". And the fact that Tacitus and Josephus referenced Jesus could mean that they was given false information, which they then wrote about.

Historians don’t discard sources unless there’s evidence of error, bias, or implausibility—not just epistemic possibility.

Tacitus had no incentive to repeat Christian propaganda, and every incentive to verify Roman administrative facts. Saying he was “misinformed” requires assuming elite Roman historians casually repeated rumors about executions without checking records—which is implausible.

Tacitus is: hostile to Christians, writing for Roman elites, and known for contempt of superstition.

Tacitus names:
-Execution
-Roman authority
-Pontius Pilate
And Roman governors kept execution records.

Even if you remove all Christian interpolations, Josephus still refers to “James, the brother of Jesus called Christ,” which presupposes Jesus as a known figure, not a theological abstraction.

Josephus wasn’t writing theology
1. He was explaining who James was
2. “Jesus called Christ” functions as an identifier, not an argument.

That’s it.

Misinformation here would require:
A widespread, accepted false figure known well enough to serve as a reference point, yet is entirely fictional.

If both Tacitus and Josephus were wrong, you need to explain how the false information became stable, specific, and geographically widespread within decades—without originating from a real person.

If we treat all second-hand ancient references as potentially false without positive disconfirmation, then we lose most of ancient history.

The real question is why do you think arguing the issue here is important? Do you think it’s going to change the professional historian, scholar, professor consensus? It will not. It has zero relevance to the subject of the historicity of Jesus Christ. This discussion has no meaning in that arena, and that’s the only arena that it counts.

If this is your private hobby and something you enjoy discussing, great. That’s really the only value this discussion has for you or anyone else.

The specific passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is widely regarded by critical scholars as a later Christian interpolation or forgery. The TF, found in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3/63, contains a detailed description of Jesus as the Christ, a miracle worker, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and resurrected—elements that are considered inconsistent with Josephus’s known style and worldview as a Jewish historian.

Scholars such as D.M. Murdock and Paul J. Hopper argue that the entire TF passage is a forgery, based on linguistic, grammatical, and narrative analysis. Hopper’s study demonstrates that the passage uses a different syntactic structure, verb usage, and temporal organization compared to Josephus’s authentic works, aligning more closely with Christian apologetic literature from the third or fourth century. The passage’s narrative style resembles a creed or theological argument rather than historical reporting, and it introduces a passive, oblique portrayal of Pontius Pilate that contradicts Josephus’s earlier, more active depiction of Pilate as a ruthless Roman authority.

Further evidence for the forgery comes from the absence of the TF in early Christian writings. Church fathers such as Origen (d. 253 CE), who extensively quoted Josephus, never referenced the passage, despite his known interest in Josephus’s works and his criticism of Josephus for not acknowledging Jesus as the Christ. The first known mention of the TF appears in the works of Eusebius (c. 260–340 CE), who is suspected by some scholars of having inserted or fabricated the passage to support Christian doctrine.

+1

To the AI poster, these counterpoint have been raised previously yet you continue to use the same tired arguments. Tacitus and Josephus do nothing to provide support for historicity.

The strongest you could claim is they dont disprove 100%, so on balance, that leaves them as neither evidence for or against.

As such, there is no other non-Christian sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

Let's say Jesus was real. So What? Lots of people from those days were real. What's so special about Jesus? You might say that what's special is that so many people say he's not real. I certainly don't see that here. Mainly, people don't care if Jesus, or anyone from that long-ago era, is real. They only care if he is the son of god. That is a matter of belief. It can't be proven. It doesn't matter how many experts think he's the son of god.

Many people say that Mohammed is real too. It only really matters if you believe that he was Allah's (i.e., God's) messenger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

Let's say Jesus was real. So What? Lots of people from those days were real. What's so special about Jesus? You might say that what's special is that so many people say he's not real. I certainly don't see that here. Mainly, people don't care if Jesus, or anyone from that long-ago era, is real. They only care if he is the son of god. That is a matter of belief. It can't be proven. It doesn't matter how many experts think he's the son of god.

Many people say that Mohammed is real too. It only really matters if you believe that he was Allah's (i.e., God's) messenger.

Have you actually read through this thread?

You are 100% incorrect.